Delhi Court May 2001 Judgments

M/S. N.M. Nagpal (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants filed these appeals against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that in view of the instructions dated 15.9.92 the Joint Commissioner is the competent authority to adjudicated the case.Whereas, the case was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner.Therefore, he set aside the adjudication order and remanded the matter to the Joint Commissioner of Cental Excise.2. Learned Counsel submits that in this case a show cause notice was issued to the appellants in respect of their price list and the Assistant Commissioner, after considering the material on record, dropped the proceedings and Revenue filed the appeals against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner.3. The learned Counsel submits that instructions dated 15.9.92 are for internal administration and these instructions are in respect of adjudication of Central Excise case other than cases relating to the approval of classification li...

M/S. Darshan Plastic Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this case a duty demand of Rs.37968/- has been confirmed on goods found short and a penalty of Rs.20,000/- has also been imposed upon the applicants.2. On hearing both sides and noting that the duty amount stands paid as seen from the debit entry in the RG-23A Part II register dated 25.12.99, I waive the predeposit of penalty and stay recovery thereof pending the appeal....

M/S. Electrolux India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC578

1. The applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.7,20,584/-.3. In this case the Assistant Commissioner finalised the assessment of RT-12 Return filed by the appellant and demanded duty. The applicants filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dismissed the appeal on the grounds that there is no appealable order issued by the lower authorities. The contention of the applicant is that the order finalising the RT-12 Return in the appealable order as already order as already held by the Tribunal in the case of Jay Chemical Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, reported in 1999 (110) E.L.T. 628. In this case the Tribunal held assessment decision on RT 12 Return in an appealable order under Section 35 or Central Excise Act, 1944. In view of the above decision, prima facie, balance of convenience is in favour of the appellants. Therefore, pre-deposit of whole of the duty amount is waived.4. With t...

M/S. Shrivastava Cold Storage Vs. Cce, Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Shri Ramesh Nair, Advocate submits that in these group of appeals, the main appellant was M/s. Virdi Brothers, Contractors, who installed Refrigeration and Cold Storage Plant in the premises of the present applications. The stay application of M/s. Virdi Brothers had come-up before the Tribunal in Appeal No.E/410/2001-A and in Stay Order No.48/2001-A dated 3.4.2001, the pre-deposit of the duty and penalty amount has been waived and recovery stayed till the disposal of their appeal. He submits that for the purpose of hearing the appeals of the (sic) recovery stayed till the disposal of the appeals.2. Shri Rajiv Tandon, SDR submits that the present applications were the persons for whom the goods have been manufactured. They have not complied with the provisions of the law and penalty has been rightly imposed thereon. He further submits that for hearing the appeals, the applicants be required to pre-deposit the full penalty amount.3. After going through the facts on record and in par...

Ms Agarwal Steel/Rolling Mills Vs. Cce Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The issue in this case is the admissibility of modvat credit which has been denied on the ground that invoice on the strength of which applicant took modvat credit did not contain all the necessary particulars such as name of manufacturer, manufacturer's invoice No.and date, rate of duty etc. as required in terms of notification 15/94 dated 30.3.94 and notification 21/94 dated 12.5.95. Ld. counsel draws my attention on an earlier order of Tribunal of the same assessee which is reported in 2001 (128) ELT 71 wherein Tribunal allowed the appeal on the same issue at the stay stage itself. Ld. Counsel therefore submits not only this is a fit case for admission of appeal but also fit case for waiver of pre deposit and stay of recovery.3. On hearing both the sides and having regard to the fact that the appeal of the same assessee has been allowed on merits on identical issue relating to the particulars on the invoice, I grant waiver of pre deposit of duty and stay recovery thereof pending...

M/S. Nayar and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that the impugned order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice as no opportunity of personal hearing was granted.Learned Counsel submits that on the date of hearing, the Counsel of the appellants alongwith Shri Srinivas (SIC) reached the office of Commissioner, it was informed that the Commissioner of Customs was busy in a meeting and they were directed to meet Deputy Commissioner of Customs Shri Pradeep Saxena who informed them that the fresh date will be given for personal hearing. The appellants also faxed the letter to the office of the Commissioner bringing these facts to his notice.2. Learned Counsel submits that the Commissioner on the date of hearing passed the impugned order by saying that none appeared on behalf of the appellants. He, therefore, submits that as the impugned order is passed without granting them an ...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Delphi Automotive Systems

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These two appeals have been filed by the Revenue against order of Commissioner (Appeals) extending capital goods credit under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules on electric bus bars on the ground that these items fell in the category of capital goods.2. On hearing the learned DR and perusing the records and noting that credit on such electrical items has been held to be admissible by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Jawahar Mills Ltd., reported in 1999 (108) ELT 47 which has been reaffirmed by the 5 Member Bench in the case of CCE vs. Surya Roshini reported in 2001 (128) ELT 293, I hold that there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order since credit has been rightly held to be available on this item.Therefore, I uphold the impugned order and reject the appeals....

M/S Stericat Gutstrings (P) Ltd Vs. Cce, Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this case, modvat credit of Rs. 1,45,292/- has been disallowed on the ground that this amount of credit was taken on the strength of an invoice dated 6.3.95 issued by the depot of the manufacturer who was not registered with the Cental Excise Department in terms of Rule 57GG of the Central Excise Rules. In addition of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- has been imposed.2. Learned Counsel, Shri J.S. Agarwal submits that credit was not taken on the basis of the invoices dated 6.3.95 because it is only a bill be realisation of money and he submits that the applicants took credit on the strength of invoice No. 1214 dated 6.10.94 and invoice No. 1317 dated 22.10.94 and the customer in both these invoices is the applicant herein. He, therefore, submits that credit has been rightly availed of and, therefore, prays for waiver of predeposit of duty and penalty.3. Opposing the prayer, learned SDR, Shri Jain draws my attention to the invoice at page 13 and 14 of the paper book viz. invoice No. 1214 a...

M/S. Mach and Fab Indus Vs. C.C.E. Bhopal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. A duty demand of Rs. 1,96,500/- representing modvat credit wrongly availed, has been confirmed against the applicants. In addition a penalty of Rs. 8000/- has been imposed upon them. The ground for disallowing credit is that it had been taken without the strength of duty paying documents.2. Non appears for the applicants when the case is called. Hence, I heard the learned SDR and perused the records.3. I find that the Assistant Commissioner had issued a letter directing the applicants to pay arrears in cash or through PLA with an option to take credit of the same by reversing the amount debited vide RG 23A Part II entry dated 15.6.98. But the applicant did not pay the amount either in cash or through PLA but took the credit by reversing the debit entry in their account. Therefore, the applicants have not made out a strong prima-facie case for waiver. I, therefore, direct predeposit of the entire duty amount within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this ordr and on suc...

Sri Gurmail Singh Vs. Cc, Lucknow

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal filed by Sri Gurmail Singh, the owner of the truck from which the contraband goods - Nivea Cream of German Origin valued Rs.55,800/- were recovered, a redemption fine of Rs.10,000/- has been imposed in lieu of confiscation of the Truck No.HR-O-38-9686. The goods were being transported from Nepal and the import of third country goods from Nepal was banned.2. Shri Vipin Garg, Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the owner of the truck has no rule to play in the smuggling activities and no penalty had been imposed on him. It was his submission that the truck was used without his knowledge for smuggling activities.3. Shri M.M.Dubey, JDR submits that the truck has obviously been used for smuggling purposes and had been rightly confiscated under the relevant provisions of the Customs Act and that the adjudicating authority has been very lenient in imposing redemption fine of Rs.10,000/- keeping in view the cost of the truck and the contraband goods recovered ...